Con

It's not my intention to prove that. That's Bannan's job. I'm saying he should be first pick unless/until we get someone better because we can prove he is better than. Where I completely part ways with the haters, I don't know what we would do without Bannan. We'd have zero points, probably. Ireland El Ahmadi Delph Are not alternatives. There are two midfield spots. Unless you frankenclone Westwood - if you think he's the best - Bannan it is.

You say 14 starts. But only 5 times has the match he has started resulted in a loss. 8 times we have won or drawn. Bannan started all 4 wins this season. That's not saying he's Xavi, but it's not a coincidence either.

Win vs Swansea Guzan 1 Lowtan 1 Vlaar 1 Clark 1 Lichaj 1 El Ahmadi 1 Bannan 1 Holman 1 Ireland 1 Weimann 1 Bent 1 Win vs Sunderland Guzan 2 Lowtan 2 Vlaar 2 Clark 2 Lichaj 2 Westwood 1 Bannan 2 Agbonlahor 1 Ireland 2 Weimann 2 Benteke 1 Win vs Reading (when only goal scored) Guzan 3 Lowtan 3 Clark 3 Baker 1 Lichaj 3 Albrighton 1 Westwood 2 Bannan 3 Ireland 3 Weimann 3 Benteke 2 Win vs Liverpool Guzan 4 Lowtan 4 Herd 1 Clark 4 Baker 2 Lichaj 4 Westwood 3 Bannan 4 Weimann 4 Holman 2 Benteke 3 Six players present for every victory... Guzan, Lowtan, Clark, Lichaj, Bannan, Weimann. (Five of them ex-reserve teamers. Chemistry, anyone?).

W D L Delph 1 4 4 Ireland 2 2 7 Westwood 4 3 4 Bannan 4 5 7 El Ahmadi 1 5 6 Points (higher is better): Bannan: 17 Westwood: 15 El Ahmadi: 8 Ireland: 8 Delph: 7 Minutes played per point (lower is better): Westwood: 62 Bannan: 69 Delph: 82 Ireland: 85 El Ahmadi: 130

Why are you guessing the stats? You can "just as easily" point to any stat if you're going to completely invent something. Over the first 19 games he conceded 22 in 1180 minutes of football. That works out as 1 goal every 54 minutes. Ireland conceded 13 in 680 minutes of play: 1 goal every 52 minutes. Over 932 minutes Westwood conceded 1 goal every 55 minutes. El Ahmadi 1 goal every 52 minutes. Delph 1 goal every 52 minutes. There are 2 central midfield spots. The above 5 midfielders have played a combined 4408 minutes, of which only 2204 minutes are available to 1 player. Over the first 19 games Bannan has played roughly 54% of the available minutes of one central midfield spot for Villa. Despite playing for only 54% of the available time, Bannan's time playing coincided with 17 of 18 points we have so far achieved. That's 94% of our points. If Bannan had played 100% of the available time in one midfield spot instead of 54%, one has to ask... how many more points would we have? As was discussed earlier with avfc1982am, quoting statistics in isolation of other statistics doesn't tell us anything.

I don't want to come to a conclusion before looking at the stats. It's the way I read the game. Stats first... then make an interpretation. If you make an interpretation first you can be mislead by your biases. For example, some people just don't like players below 6' playing for their team. Without stats to show them shorter players can be good because they are short they might never work out they are wrong. BTW glad you agree that stats cannot be ignored, and I realise you never said they should be ignored (and I never claimed you did). We're very inconsistent. The two teams below us are consistently shit. We have had great results against Liverpool 1-3 and Manchester City 2-4 (in the League Cup). 0-0s against Arsenal and Stoke showed our defensive capabilities. The 1-4 Norwich result was also good. We've had some shit results too. I don't put all the blame for those on Bannan like I don't give him all the credit for the good ones. The point that I'd want to get across is Bannan is probably the best we currently have so should start until we get a better player for that position. I'd argue the stats don't disagree with this interpretation. Westwood is great - plays well with Bannan - although I'd warn against the novelty factor of him not being Barry Bannan. Can we buy better than Bannan in the January transfer window? Yes, of course! I'm not Bannan's agent. I'm not going to push for us to play him if it is not good for us. Now, will buy someone? Who knows? Certainly not opposed to buying more strength in midfield. But until then Bannan is the best we've got and it would be a bit churlish to deny him that respect.

I was answering with the knowledge other people - who might be reading - have said they'd like a player like Diame in CM. My point is Bannan is not equivalent to Diame, just like he cannot be compared to Walcott or Lennon. You can't compare the two. It's the manager's responsibility to play players to their strengths. If Bannan plays too many long balls then it's the manager's decision to make him do that. That's the way I read the game. Bannan doesn't make long balls because he wants to look all Hollywood - at least I don't think he does. Passing stats relevance, as you imply, can only be assessed in light of other stats. These other stats can themselves be influenced by the quality of players around Bannan not Bannan himself (do they move to find space, is their first touch good?). Whilst agreeing with you on this I think it is wrong to ignore all statistics. If you ignore statistics you end up saying something that is completely opposite to the truth. There is a balance to be struck between over-using statistics and not using at all. Statistics when used should should be justified with other evidence that supports the interpretation you are making. So if you say high pass % means he is a good player you should also say that when Bannan plays one, two, or three other positive things happen, suggesting a correlation between his high pass % and this other positive outcome. E.g. when player with high pass% plays the team scores more goals, wins more games, maintains higher % possession than when he does not play. Again, I'm not willing to criticise Bannan's decision between long and short ball because I don't know whether it is his or the manager's tactical instruction to him. If the manager's decision is to have a mixed ball system, and to leave it to the player to decide what to do, then yes, it is the player's decision. If a team plays long ball, short ball - that is the manager's decision. If that is the case then the quality of the long or short ball, where the ball goes, is down to the skill of the player.

Southampton have have had some defensive problems, particularly goalkeeping errors. They've yet to have an injury crisis, just one player injured. We had 9 injured prior to yesterday's game, including two CBs. Injuries could affect their quite impressive attack in the last games of the season and make their defence leakier. Their small squad could also become fatigued, and rotation of mainstays with bit-players could impact on performance even worse than occurs at Villa. If we buy experience in the window, with Vlaar back into central defence, we should be able to maintain a stronger final push, even if Southampton beat us at home in a few weeks time, which they are capable of doing.

Bannan gets stick for his long balls but they have improved. 7/8 of Bannan's long balls against Wigan were on target. It was his very long free kick to the head of Benteke which lead to a goal-scoring chance for Holman. That long free kick wasn't a hit-and-hope. It had pace and a fairly low trajectory, and Benteke was able to give a superb knock-down. Another thing about the long ball is, while he can be criticised if it is on target or not, it's not always his decision-making whether he plays the ball long or gives it short. The manager knows Bannan will get a certain amount of touches during the match and will tell him before the match whether he wants him to play it short or go for the quick long ball. This "hollywood ball" Bannan reputation may have been McLeish's tactics, not Bannan's choice. As for comparisons with other players, he is not like Walcott or Lennon. They are wingers or strikers. They have pace, which is a weapon even when they're young headless chickens. Bannan is a central midfielder. He needs to be composed at all times, which stats show he's improving on. There are very few comparisons to him in this league. Closest comparisons in Premier League to Barry Bannan's playing style are: Leon Osman - Everton Joe Allen - Liverpool Leon Britton - Swansea Comparing him to Frank Lampard, Mohamed Diame or Aaron Lennon doesn't demonstrate the strongest understanding of the game... IMO.

Good question. I think he's in the team primarily to provide assists, or assists for assists that lead to goals. He's also a specialist set pieces taker. Match commentators compliment his set piece delivery. He delivered an excellent long ball to Benteke against Wigan leading to the Holman chance that hit the crossbar. He's not like Xavi in ability but in style of play Bannan is more like Xavi than other midfielders. Xavi receives the ball, then passes it on, short to another player. He does this for most of the game, keeping possession of the ball with his team. Xavi doesn't dribble or do much long range shooting. Bannan plays more long balls than Xavi for tactical reasons decided by manager. This season Bannan has provided chances for strikers for goals that haven't been taken. In most matches we have not dominated possession near the opponent's final third, so opportunities to provide assists have been limited. He's not an action hero like Frank Lampard or Steven Gerrard - we might expect Gary Gardner to emulate that kind of player because he is much taller, like them. Bannan is not supposed to charge about the pitch flying into tackles, take lots of shots from long range, and arrive late in the penalty area as an extra striker scoring goals like Lampard or Gerrard. That's not how Xavi plays.

You cannot deny that the team has performed better in his presence. 17/18 points won with him on the field. He is a set pieces taker who knits together the play in the middle of the park. He's also got vision for the long ball and through balls. If we go down he'll be sold to another Premiership club. Swansea, perhaps. But by then it will be too late to say "put that in your pipe and smoke it" - unless you are Barry Bannan, of course. Remember a lot of - but not all - Arsenal fans have hated Theo Walcott for just about the whole of his career - until now. Walcott has continued to improve well into his 20s and proven his critics wrong. He's become a key player for Arsenal. Bannan has more to do for Villa fans but those who still think he's a useful player can have the self-belief they are not completely mad.

What amazes me about people who claim Bannan is small and use this as the starting point of their argument... Bannan is the same height as Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, and Scholes and towers over Carzola and Allen by an inch. Bannan is not small for a footballer. In fact, some might say he is the perfect size to be a great player. You can turn quicker in a smaller space. You can get the ball out of your feet quicker. You have a lower centre-of-gravity and are more easily fouled. However, I recognise that some supporters won't ever be satisfied until we have a First XI that could tag-team with Wolfman in WWF. I don't deny large midfielders can be great players. Football is a great sport because there is literally a role for all shapes and sizes.

What happened today? Lichaj sends over a cross for Benteke to head a half-chance towards goal. Bennett gets turned for Boyce's goal, then played Kone onside for the third. Does a few fancy tricks, despite the fact we are 0-3 down, gets dispossessed. Provides no service for strikers. What does Lambert do? He subs Lichaj for Albrighton, keeps Bennett on in 442. Absurd. Lichaj would be much better in the 442 rather than the wing back role he was asked to play on his wrong side! How is it possible for Lambert not to notice all the mistakes Bennett is making. I'm not claiming Lichaj is awesome but he's the best we got in that position and I'm worried that Lambert is going to persist with Bennett no matter what.

Guzan Vlaar Baker Clark Lowton Lichaj Westwood Bannan Weimann Agbonlahor Benteke If anyone wants to know how to do what I just did, it's: [ team ] [ / team ] Ah forget it. It worked in post preview. Don't know what's happened. You get the idea.

Like him or loathe him, Bannan is Villa's talisman - but only by default because we can't bear Stephen Ireland. There is a logical reason to think Bannan is the best of them. He was on the pitch for 17/18 points we won this season, and for 13 out of 15 goals we have scored. At a presently bigger club he would have a smoother transition into the first team. To have so much pressure heaped on your shoulders at 23 must be very hard going.

Sucked the life out of the team in the first half. He can drive his pink Land Rover to Fulham or West Ham. I still believe his talent will reappear before the end of his career but it's not going to happen at Villa Park. He'll always go down as the part-exchange guy for Milner.

We didn't have 3 CB playing. We had 1 CB + Lowton, a RB. + Herd, a 5'8" DM/Utility player. The only player who was 5'8" who has ever been awesome CB was Fabio Cannovaro. I don't think Herd is the next Fabio Cannovaro. He's putting in a big shift, and a lot of effort, but it's not his position. Benteke was 'marking' Ramis at the first corner of the match because he was the only Villa player with the height to match him. Baker/Vlaar are big misses through injury. We need to use the January transfer window to strengthen with experience in every position.

Stephen Ireland is supposed to be our best midfielder. He is earning the highest wage. Yet you take out all your anger on Bannan, who is our top performing midfielder by default. Bannan's passing was good today. He didn't have a great game, none of the players did, but he didn't play badly either. He was consistent and linked well with Benteke and Weimann with some great forward balls. Stephen Ireland was the manager's go-to guy today. Lambert benched Westwood so that Ireland could drive us to the win. Ireland didn't want to be out there and got subbed early. And that's probably the last time you'll see him in a Villa shirt.

Yet he's got the best defensive record of all our defenders. Statistically he is our top defender at present, if not our best player.

Lichaj will continue to improve but I agree he is not a "marquee" left back, like Leighton Baines or Ashley Cole... as good in attack as in defence. If you are a top 4 team, you would not sign Lichaj at present. But how many of those types of players are there around to be signed by Villa? I think we would have to look abroad to bring someone in. In the meantime defensive ability should not be overlooked. Lichaj has registered 5 clean sheets in 13 games this season, conceding just 10 in the remaining 8. He's also registered 1 assist, picked up 5 yellow cards. That's a good record and he deserves his share of the credit for that. He might not be great at dribbling, exceptionally fast or the best crosser, but if has the bravery to hold the line, doesn't play strikers on side, plays safety first, doesn't get caught out of position and isn't easily turned, and knows when to take a yellow card for the team... as you say, a useful squad player. Lambert brought in Bennett because he has more attacking talent, which he probably does, but quite obviously he's not ready to play in the Premiership at the moment. He is nowhere near performing at the defensive level of Lichaj. Bennett has 1 clean sheet in 9 appearances (when he started the first 11 min against Sunderland, got injured, then Lichaj took over for the rest of the match), zero assists, and 2 yellow and 1 red card. There should be absolutely no question Lichaj should be our LB. Only question is whether Bennett is going to be good enough defensively to take his place, or if we need to buy to replace Bennett.

As 24/25 year old he has additional experience we badly need. He's played all the top teams at the biggest grounds before. All players make mistakes. Do they bounce back from them? I don't know what mistakes you are referring to, or when he marked Bale out the game (that sounds awesome - so why did we not play him against Tottenham?). On current form he is first choice ahead of Bennett and Stevens. Most players continue to improve as they gain experience, midfielders, defenders and goalkeepers especially. As long as they maintain fitness levels 28-31 is the age range which most players peak in performance. Can be older for goalkeepers. It is strikers who rely on speed and athleticism that you have to watch for signs they're not getting better with experience. That has not occurred recently. Unless you are thinking of the Chelsea game when he was subbed 56 minutes when the score was 3-0. If he was subbed tactically, not through injury, Lambert was wrong: after Lichaj went off we conceded 5 goals, two of which came in down the side Lichaj would have been defending. Lichaj not involved in the first three goals. I think he was injured. They're not meaningless stats but you decide how relevant they are compared to other stats. It is meaningful Delph has a high pass completion rate, that is good. You can't criticise Delph for being good at something. That is also ludicrous! But if he fails at dribbling or doesn't make tackles or is not in position to receive passes at right time, some other aspect of the game, it is logical not to play him. Now can we criticise Lichaj in this way? I think it's fair to say he's not the best going forward. But that is completely irrelevant at the moment. We need someone solid at the back who can be trusted. The fact that 11 of our 15 goals this season have occurred when Lichaj was on the pitch shows we don't suffer offensively much when he is present. So the one logical argument to keep Lichaj out the starting XI - would hurt the team as an attacking force - has no factual basis this season. Right now we need to build on our defence. leave the Bennett experiment to when we have a safe cushion above the relegation zone.

That's one way to put it. Another way is the criticism is completely and utterly bonkers. When Lichaj plays (13 appearances this season, so a decent sample size) -10 goals +11 goals No other Villa player is in positive goal difference. Maybe it's just a fluke. But when I see him play he is much more solid defensively than Bennett, and he has more experience than Stevens. He should own that position. Lambert needs to quit the Bennett experiment until we are safe.

Fair enough, but they did not win in such style. Plus, Chelsea had Lulz playing in CD that day.

Guzan vs Guzan = same guy Cuellar vs Lowton = Cuellar was a CD not a proper SB/WB. Lowton is much more talented in that position. Collins vs Vlaar or Baker = Vlaar is more talented, with more experience than Collins. Baker has less experience but is more talented. Dunne vs Clark = Clark is more talented, less experience. Warnock vs Bennett/Stevens/Lichaj = Lichaj is the only Villa player with a positive goal difference whilst playing this season (+1). He is better defensively than Warnock, and has decent amount of experience. Not convinced Bennett is more offensive talent than Warnock and is not more experienced, and has the worst goal difference of the 3 (-13). Stevens is not more experienced. I've not seen him enough to judge his performances. Albrighton vs Holman = Holman is more experienced and has been doing a good job. Petrov vs Herd = We miss Petrov. Herd has been playing out of position in CD. Did well against Liverpool but Chelsea and Tottenham are great teams. Herd has a lot of talent and always makes a great effort. N'Zogbia vs Delph = N'Zog never really performed for us. Delph is not a regular for us so is not a fair example. Benteke is better. Ireland vs El Ahmadi = Ireland is our senior midfielder, earns highest wage, but never performs to his wage level. Barry Bannan has taken his spot, and done much better. 17/18 points this season with Bannan on the pitch. I'd take Bannan over Ireland for ever game. He's earning his money. Agbonlahor vs Agbonlahor = Same guy. In general our team is less experienced but younger and more talented. Our team last season would not have beaten Liverpool 1-3 away from home. They did not have the talent to do that. Would they have lost 8-0 to Chelsea? A few seasons before they lost 7-1. So they could have done. There are improvements every part of the pitch this season but the progress is masked by inconsistencies that are down to inexperience. More talent, less experience. More experience being gained by the match. I'm very happy with this trade-off and have no worries whatsoever about relegation.

Villa have had 4 clean sheets in the last 10 games (would be 5 but for a last gasp deflected goal scored by Liverpool). Newcastle has 2 clean sheets in 10. Fulham has 1 in 10. Southampton has 2 in 10. Sunderland have 4 in 10. West Ham have 3 in 10. When we concede, we fall apart. That is why we have conceded so many. All the goals we concede come in a few bad matches. This inconsistency is exactly what you expect from a young team, and ours is the youngest in the Premier League. We have a team with the talent to produce great results sometimes. This will be enough to keep us up.